Share this:

Like this:

Three of my most unfavorite (is unfavorite a word) I guess not, given the visual racket my installed editor is and has made since I typed, “unfavorite.”

No worry though, I believe conservative readers can figure it out. Their (the three) names are Barack Obama, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. With Hillary, we get a bonus because she pulls Bill’s ear and he tags along until he can escape to some exotic place full of tarts and other delights.

The cost of maintaining these three (add Obama’s family) is almost incalculable but in the Obamas’ case their lovely vacations to Hawaii and foreign destinations is estimated to have cost we American suckers in the area of eighty million dollars. We can add the cost of investigating Obama for various crimes. Can you say, IRS and allowing his minions to run away with our freedoms? How about “Fast and Furious,” and the deaths and disruption we can lay on that little trick. Obama knew about that operation and has remained almost mute all these years since it was first revealed to the world. If, as President Truman enjoyed remarking, “The buck stops here,” (referring to the presidential desktop) then there was a pile of dollar bills on Obama’s desk before he left. We can leave Obama to history, although he will be around stirring the pot that all progressives stir. Would anyone care to bet that he will be spending George Soros’ money?

John Kerry. What can we say about John Kerry except he followed in his boss’s footsteps when it came to favoring Palestinian pursuits and anything which placed Iranian interests in front of those of the United States. We will definitely find His and Obama’s actions have guaranteed we will fight a war (perhaps a nuclear war) with this Islāmic Terrorist country. Perhaps he, of the three, will settle down and help the former Ms Heinz spend her millions.

Finally to Hillary; if there is any finality to her story. Perhaps the FBI and others will make a final determination in her and Bill’s foundation tricks and treasures. Maybe she will finally be charged or cleared of the Benghazi sorry mistakes and manipulations she is alleged to have made in that tragic destruction of life and the sorry lies told by her and her minions. If she is not charged and found guilty, Hillary will be back to try to claim that elusive prize in the of being the first female President of the United States. Wait for it …or not.

This week, I knew early on what my topic would be. For the past couple years, I’ve followed the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP)—including offering public comment at one of the EPA’S “listening sessions” in Atlanta. Back in February, I wrote about the Supreme Court’s historic stay. On Tuesday, September 27, more history was made when the full DC Appeals Court heard oral arguments regarding the CPP—from both defenders and detractors. There, history was made again: the full court engaged in the arguments for the full day.

Despite the historic nature of the case, few people are following it—or even knew about the CPP’s day in the Appeals Court.

For my weekly radio show: America’s Voice for Energy, I interviewed two of the lawyers involved in the case who were in the room for the full oral arguments. Their insights, along with news reports, resulted in this week’s column: Striking down Obama’s climate legacy has its day in court (attached and pasted-in-below).

Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great, Inc.

PO Box 52103, Albuquerque, NM, 87181

505.239.8998

For immediate release: October 3, 2016

Commentary by Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.

Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org

Words: 1128

Striking down Obama’s climate legacy has its day in court

President Obama’s flagship policy on climate change had its day in court on Tuesday, September 27. The international community is closely watching; most Americans, however, are unaware of the historic case known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP)—which according to David Rivkin, one of the attorneys arguing against the plan: “is not just to reduce emissions, but to create a new electrical system.”

For those who haven’t followed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule, here’s a brief history that brings us to up to date:

EPA published the final CPP rule in the Federal Register on October 2015.

More than two dozen states and a variety of industry groups and businesses immediately filed challenges against it—with a final bipartisan coalition of more than 150 entities including 27 states, 24 trade associations, 37 electric coops, 3 labor unions, and about a half dozen nonprofits.

On January 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied a request for a stay that would have prevented implementation of the rule until the court challenges were resolved.

On February 9, the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS), in an unprecedented action, before the case was heard by the lower court, overruled, and issued a stay that delays enforcement of CPP.

The Court of Appeals was scheduled to hear oral arguments before a three-judge panel on June 2, but pushed them to September 27 to be heard by the full court—something the court almost never does (though for issues involving “a question of exceptional importance” procedural rules allow for the case to proceed directly to a hearing before the full appeals court).

The court, which is already fully briefed on a case before hearing the oral arguments, typically allows a maximum 60-90 minutes to hear both sides and occasionally, with an extremely complex case, will allow two hours. The oral argument phase allows the judges to interact with lawyers from both sides and with each other. However, for the CPP, the court scheduled a morning session focusing on the EPA’s authority to promulgate the rule and an afternoon session on the constitutional claims against the rule—which ended up totaling nearly 7 hours. Jeff Holmstead, a partner with Bracewell Law, representing one of the lead challengers, told me this was the only time the full court has sat all day to hear a case.

One of the issues addressed was whether or not the EPA could “exercise major transformative power without a clear statement from Congress on the issue”—with the 2014 Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA determining it could not. Republican appointee Judge Brett Kavanaugh noted that the UARG scenario “sounds exactly like this one.”

Judge Thomas Griffith, a Bush appointee, questioned: “Why isn’t this debate going on in the floor of the Senate?” In a post-oral argument press conference, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) pointed out that the debate has been held on the Senate floor in the form of cap-and-trade legislation—which has failed repeatedly over a 15-year period. Therefore, he said, the Obama administration has tried to do through regulation what the Senate wouldn’t do through legislation.

“Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, one of Obama’s mentors,” writes the Dallas Morning News: “made a star appearance to argue that the Clean Power Plan is unconstitutional.”

Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, a Bush appointee, concluded: “You have given us all we need and more, perhaps, to work on it.”

The day in court featured many of the nation’s best oral advocates and both sides feel good about how the case was presented.

For the challengers (who call CPP “an unlawful power grab”), West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who along with Texas AG Ken Paxton, co-lead the case, reported: “We said (then) that we were looking forward to having our day in court on the merits. Today was that day. I think that the collective coalition was able to put very strong legal arguments forward, as to why this regulation is unlawful, and why it should be set aside.”

But the case has its proponents, too, and they, also, left feeling optimistic. In a blog post for the Environmental Defense Fund, Martha Roberts wrote about what she observed in the courtroom: “The judges today were prepared and engaged. They asked sharply probing questions of all sides. But the big news is that a majority of judges appeared receptive to arguments in support of the Clean Power Plan.” She concluded that she’s confident “that climate protection can win the day.”

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) summarized the session saying that stakeholders on all sides were left “parsing questions and reactions, and searching for signs of which way the judges are leaning.” U.S. Newsreported: “The judges repeatedly interrupted the lawyers for both sides to ask pointed questions about the legal underpinnings of their positions.”

The decision, which is not expected for several months, may come down to the ideological make-up of the court: 6 of the judges were appointed by Democrat presidents and 4 by Republicans. Though, according to WSJ, Obama appointee Judge Patricia Millet “expressed concern that the administration was in effect requiring power plants to subsidize companies competing with them for electricity demand.” She offered hope to the challengers when she said: “That seems to be quite different from traditional regulation.” Additionally, in his opinion published in the Washington Post, Constitutional law professor Jonathan Adler, stated: “Some of the early reports indicate that several Democratic nominees posed tough questions to the attorney defending the EPA.”

Now, the judges will deliberate and discuss. Whatever decision they come to, experts agree that the losing side will appeal and that the case will end up in front of the Supreme Court—most likely in the 2017/2018 session with a decision possible as late as June 2018. There, the ultimate result really rests in the presidential election, as the current SCOTUS make up will be changed with the addition of the ninth Justice, who will be appointed by the November 8 winner—and that Justice will reflect the new president’s ideology.

Hillary Clinton has promised to continue Obama’s climate change policies while Donald Trump has announced he’ll rescind the CPP and cancel the Paris Climate Agreement.

The CPP is about more than the higher electricity costs and decreased grid reliability, which results from heavy reliance on wind and solar energy as CPP requires, and, as the South Australian experiment proves, doesn’t work. It has far-reaching impacts. WSJ states: “Even a partial rebuke of the Clean Power Plan could make it impossible for the U.S. to hit the goals Mr. Obama pledged in the Paris climate deal.” With Obama’s climate legacy at stake, the international community is paying close attention.

I have been watching the SolarCity solar panel manufacturing factory story for a few weeks. I’ve almost written on it a couple of times. How fortuitous for that, each time, another story captured my attention. Last Thursday, the story took on a whole new dimension: a criminal corruption probe. Now was the right time to write The Buffalo Billion fraud and bribery scheme: corruption and pay-to-play, a symbol of everything they’re doing (attached and pasted-in-below). It is a sordid tale—but then, most of the green-energy crony-corruption stories are.

As I like to do, The Buffalo Billion fraud and bribery scheme: corruption and pay-to-play, a symbol of everything they’re doing combines several stories to present a fresh analysis while incorporating many of my favorite themes: politics, green-energy crony-corruption, and current news. Plus, it should make you mad! Getting all that into one piece, does make it a bit on the long side, but I hope you’ll enjoy the thorough coverage of this underreported story.

The Buffalo Billion fraud and bribery scheme: corruption and pay-to-play, a symbol of everything they’re doing

When New York’s Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo gushed over SolarCity’s new solar panel factory in Buffalo, New York, the audience, likely, didn’t grasp the recently-revealed meaning of his words: “It is such a metaphor—a symbol of everything we’re doing.”

The 1.2 million square foot building, being built by the state of New York on the site of a former steel plant, is looking more and more like another political promise of help for one of the poorest cities in the state that ends up enriching cronies without ever achieving any potential for the people.

Yes, it is a symbol of everything they’re doing.

Previously, during her first senatorial bid, Hillary Clinton also promised jobs to the economically depressed region of the state of New York—200,000 to be exact. Citing a report from the Washington Post, CBSNewsstates: “Jobs data show that job growth stagnated in Upstate New York during her eight years in office, the report said, and manufacturing jobs dropped by nearly a quarter.” The Post’s extensive story reveals that jobs never materialized—despite “initial glowing headlines.” It claims: “Clinton’s self-styled role as economic promoter” actually “involved loyal campaign contributors who also supported the Clinton Foundation.” Through federal grants and legislation, she helped steer money to programs, companies, and initiatives that benefitted the donors but failed to reverse the economic decline of the region.

Back on January 5, 2012, Cuomo announced a $1 billion five-year economic development pledge for Buffalo. It was to be the governor’s banner economic initiative with the SolarCity factory as the cornerstone and a pledge of 1,460 direct factory jobs. Other companies, including IBM and a Japanese clean-energy company were also lined up.

With the state-of-the-art solar panel factory ready for equipment to be installed, the wisdom of the entire program is being scrutinized—and is coming up short.

First, on September 22, two of Cuomo’s closest aides—along with several others—were charged in corruption and fraud cases involving state contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Addressing the press at his Manhattan office, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara asserted: “that ‘pervasive corruption and fraud’ infested one of the governor’s signature economic development programs. Companies got rich, and the public got bamboozled,” reportsThe Observer. Bharara described the bid-rigging and bribery arrangement: “Behind the scenes they were cynically rigging the whole process so that the contracts would go to handpicked ‘friends of the administration’—‘friends’ being a euphemism for large donors. Through rigged bids, state contracts worth billions of dollars in public development monies, meant to revitalize and renew upstate New York, were instead just another way to corruptly award cronies who were willing to pay to play.”

The 79-page criminal complaint notes that campaign contributions to Cuomo poured in from people connected to the bribe-paying companies as soon as those businesses began pursuing state projects.

One of the companies that received the lucrative contracts was LPCiminelli—run by “Cuomo mega-donor” Louis Ciminelli. He allegedly offered bribes to Cuomo confidante Todd Howe—who has admitted to pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars from developers to rig bids on multimillion-dollar state contracts linked to Buffalo Billion projects.

Ciminelli received the $750 million contract to build the SolarCity plant. The Buffalo News cites Bharara as saying: “the state’s bidding process for the factory being built for SolarCity at RiverBend in South Buffalo turned into a ‘criminal’ enterprise that favored LPCiminelli, where company executives were given inside information about how the deal was to be awarded.”

Part of Cuomo’s deal with SolarCity—in which the state owns the building and equipment with SolarCity leasing it under a 10-year deal—requires the company to meet a timetable of job-creation quotas or pay hefty penalties. Even before the building was complete, however, the company slashed its job commitment from 1460 to 500. According to the Investigative Post, SolarCity claims it will still employ the original number, but due to automation, the majority of them will not be at the Buffalo plant. With the state’s $750 million investment, that works out to $1.5 million per manufacturing job. In a press release, Cuomo promised 1460 “direct manufacturing jobs at the new facility.”

Even the 500 jobs will only materialize if the plant actually starts production—currently slated for June 2017. SolarCity’s future is, as Crain’s New York Businessputs it: “uncertain.”

Amid the company’s myriad problems are the facts that it has never been profitable, nor does it have manufacturing experience.

In February 2014, SolarCity’s stock price peaked at about $85 a share. Today, a share is less than $20. Microaxis gives it a probability of bankruptcy score of 48 percent. Crains reports that it posted a $251 million loss in Q1 2016 and a loss of $230 million in Q2. To “stop the bleeding,” Elon Musk (a donor to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns and the Clinton Foundation), who owns more than 20 percent of the company, announced that Tesla (of which he also owns more than 20 Percent) would purchase SolarCity—this after as many as 15 other potential buyers and investors looked at the company and decided to pass. SolarCity even considered selling the solar panel manufacturing business.

Both SolarCity and Tesla are, according to the Buffalo News, facing a “cash bind”—this despite receiving billions in federal and state grants and tax credits as I’ve previously addressed. Tesla is described as “cash-eating electric vehicle and battery making businesses.” For SolarCity, its model—which finances its solar panel installations, in order to make a profit on a lease that can be as long as 30 years, while it collects the lucrative government incentives worth billions (a practice for which Solar City is currently under Congressional investigation)—requires constantly raising new money from investors. Once the Tesla deal was announced, SolarCity’s lenders started to pull back.

The Buffalo Newsreports: “Stock in SolarCity…now trades for $4 a share less, or 19 percent less, than what Tesla is offering—a gap indicating that investors are uncertain the deal will be completed.” Additionally, the deal is being challenged by four separate lawsuits—which could delay the deal. Addressing the merger, one analyst said: “We see a lot more that can go wrong than can go right.”

Then there is the manufacturing angle. Originally, the Buffalo plant was going to manufacture high-efficacy solar panel modules developed by Silevo—a company SolarCity bought in 2014. Crain’s reports that it will instead produce complete solar roofs. Something it says “Dow Chemical recently abandoned after five years because it could not find a way to make a profit on the technology.” But then, the Buffalo News says: “The initial production in Buffalo is expected to include photovoltaic cells that SolarCity purchases from suppliers and are used in the products that will be assembled in the South Park Avenue factory.”

Whatever the plant builds or manufactures, getting it operating will be expensive—even with the New York taxpayers owning the building and equipment—and will drain scarce cash from SolarCity at a time when its financing costs have increased.

Buffalo residents wonder if they’ll be stuck with the world’s largest empty warehouse and without the promised jobs.

No wonder the entire project is in doubt. Because of the Cuomo administration corruption allegations, other proposed job-creators, including IBM, have pulled out until the probe is completed.

For now, Cuomo is not a part of the criminal complaint—though his name is mentioned many times—and he claims he knew nothing about it, nor does he think he’s a target of the ongoing federal probe. “It is almost inconceivable the governor didn’t know what was going on,” Doug Muzzio, a professor of public affairs at Baruch College, said. “And if he didn’t know what was going on, you can argue he should have known.”

Bharara has suggested that the better name for the program would be: “The Buffalo Billion Fraud and Bribery Scheme.”

Yep, the Buffalo Billion project is a “symbol” of the political promises and crony corruption—“everything we’re doing”—that takes taxpayers dollars to reward political donors and then walks away when the jobs don’t materialize.

If you like your coffee and your politics flavorful, served with a heaping dose of civility by a diverse group of interesting people from all parts of the political spectrum then you should be joining us every Saturday. Started in 2007 over coffee and lively conversation by a group of concerned friends and neighbors, ‘Conspiracy Brews’ is committed to finding solutions to some of our State’s toughest problems. Our zest for constructive political discourse is only equaled by our belief that the only way forward is to exchange our views in a relaxed and friendly setting. For additional information or to be added to our e-mail list contact: ConspiracyBrews@aol.com.

Conspiracy Brews

“Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none.”

atSouthwest Secondary Learning Center10301 Candelaria Rd NE
(northwest corner of Candelaria and Morris)We think that government should be open and honest at all times.
People from all political parties are welcome.

***Quotes of the Week***

“After I’m dead I’d rather have peole ask why I have no monument than why I have one.”

Democrats Despise ‘We, the [Deplorable] People’

Statist Democrats don’t trust “We, the People.”

By Mark Alexander · September 21, 2016

“I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom.” —Thomas Jefferson (1816)

Last week I devoted my column to The Patriot Post’s 20th anniversary. I did so in order to acknowledge our editors and staff, who do an outstanding job, and our fellow Patriots, who have supported and promoted our efforts for all these years.

According to Clinton, “To just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. Some of those folks, they are irredeemable. … And unfortunately, there are people like that and [Trump] has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, [but] now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric.”

Clinton’s adoring Leftmedia sycophants defended her claim, characterizing it as a “gaffe.” But a gaffe is defined as “an unintentional remark; a blunder.” And this was no gaffe — it was scripted, it was intentional, and it captured perfectly the utter contempt with which Clinton and her like-minded Democrats view middle America.

Perhaps it was also a calculated attempt to divert attention from her recent collapse at the 9/11 Ground Zero memorial event in New York City, due, she claimed, to a “bout with pneumonia.” Or maybe it was a diversion from her collapse in the polls in the wake of her endless lies about concealing official communications.

As for the other half of Trump’s supporters, Clinton said they are misguided “people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change.”

Ah, yes, foolish people just “desperate for change,” rather than eager to award Barack Obama a third term by electing Hillary Clinton.

In those statements to her wealthy left-elitist donors, Clinton didn’t just offend tens of millions of grassroots Trump supporters, she insulted all grassroots Americans nationwide. And she offered her absurd assessment of rank-and-file Americans a week after smearing Trump supporters as racists. Clinton’s “deplorable” characterization of her fellow Americans parallels Barack Obama’s description of his detractors as “bitterly clinging to guns and religion.”

Having seen the uproar caused by her comments, Clinton, ostensibly, attempted to walk them back by noting they were “grossly generalistic and that’s never a good idea. I regret saying half.” Perhaps she meant “all” instead of “half.” And this from a faux populist candidate whose campaign slogan is “Stronger Together.”

For his part, Donald Trump fired back, saying: “We have the support of cops and soldiers, carpenters and welders, the young and the old, and millions of working-class families who just want a better future. These were the people Hillary Clinton so viciously demonized. … She divides people into baskets as though they were objects, not human beings.”

He continued, “While her campaign slanders you as deplorables and irredeemables, I call you hard-working American Patriots who love our country and want a better future for all our people. You are everybody. Above all else … you’re entitled to leadership that honors you, cherishes you and totally defends you.”

Worth special consideration is a sizable subgroup of Clinton’s “deplorables” whom she knows do not support her: the deployables.

Recent polling of military personnel found that Obama’s support among the uniformed services has dropped to a paltry 15%, while his disapproval ratings in that group are at an all-time high. This extends to Clinton as Obama’s heir apparent.

Giving voice to the millions of military personnel and their families who are prohibited from speaking ill of their commander in chief, one of the many retired senior military officers who oppose Clinton stepped forward on behalf of the active duty ranks.

A colleague with whom I serve on the National Advisory Board of the Medal of Honor Heritage Center, Gen. Burwell Bell (USA-Ret.), offered his thoughts on Clinton’s disparagement of grassroots Americans:

“Hillary Clinton’s assertion that half of Donald Trump’s supporters are in a ‘basket of deplorables’ is an insult to millions of American citizens and illuminates a dangerous movement and trend in the Democratic Party. For the past several years both President Obama and now Hillary Clinton have chosen to divide Americans into often times fictitious and mean-spirited groups, and then demonize those groups in order to isolate them while energizing the Democratic base. … Mrs. Clinton’s demonizing and marginalizing American citizens is shameful. I spent 39 years of my adult life defending all Americans. I deeply resent Mrs. Clinton’s [denigration of] the American electorate. Candidates should articulate policy perspectives and not divide Americans in an effort to conquer millions of our citizens.”

The fact is, Hillary Clinton and her left-elite cadres detest and despise people like us. Indeed, they despise “We the People…”

What distinguished our founding contract from all others is its avowal that all legitimate power is and should be entrusted to “the People” rather than state potentates.

To that end, John Adams once observed, “If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice,” they would remain the repository for Liberty.

But Clinton and her statist elites do not trust the People, which is why they are forever endeavoring to subjugate their constituents to state rule, using all means to shape their opinions toward compliance — the very antithesis of Liberty. They corrupt the will of the people by propagating endless lies in order to inculcate into their subjects the belief that they are victims and that they can’t survive without the protection of the Democrat Party and the state.

Of the susceptibility of the people to such inculcation, Patrick Henry wrote: “It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth – and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts.”

Clinton’s fallacious proposition depends on a majority of American voters falling under the spell of the Left’s relentless rhetoric, and who will, like lemmings, pull the lever that makes her their master.

Thomas Jefferson warned, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone.” Indeed, the degeneration of the behemoth beast that is our central government today is testament to his timeless wisdom.

Share this:

Like this:

Hillary’s Unhealthy Credibility

Thomas Gallatin · Sep. 13, 2016

As we reported Sunday, Hillary Clinton was filmed collapsing after leaving early from that morning’s 9/11 memorial tribute. The initial explanation released by her campaign was that she had become overheated. Hours later, the narrative changed as Hillary emerged from her daughter’s apartment waving and declaring that she felt great. It was then revealed that Clinton had been diagnosed with pneumonia by her doctor on Friday, two days prior to her collapse.

Before this latest episode, questions about the status of Hillary’s health had been met by her campaign with accusations of unsubstantiated “conspiracy” theories or with dismissive references to minor dehydration issues. Bill Clinton unhelpfully suggested such dehydration happened “frequently — not frequently, rarely but on more than one occasion.” In any case, what has become increasingly evident is that Clinton, similar to her responses to questions regarding her private email scandal and her involvement in Benghazi, opts for obfuscation rather than transparency every time.

Donald Trump declared that he will release his medical records and that Hillary should follow suit. But yesterday, when Hillary was questioned by CNN’s Anderson Cooper as to why she had not revealed her pneumonia diagnosis sooner, her response was once again to deflect. She said, “Well, I just didn’t think it was going to be that big a deal.” All her explanation has done is fuel speculations that she is hiding some other more significant health issue. Hillary’s instinct to cover up rather than be open and honest effectively turned a minor news incident into a major campaign problem. As Charles Krauthammer noted, “[T]his is another case of the cover-up being worse than the crime.” And her handling of this latest issue only serves as further evidence that her credibility is what’s truly unhealthy.